If it’s legitimate change, the Republican body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down! Even when change begins in that horrible situation of election defeat, that is something that God intended to happen.

Much has been said about GOP and how social conservatism has turned people off. The second issue I have is about GOP's economic policies. US is in this mess because the private sector has NOT delivered growth. Given the natural advantages that US has in terms of work ethic, the brightest minds, quality immigration, one would have expected US to cruise along like what Japan did through the 80's. But US has stuttered from one recession to another with an average GDP growth of 2% over two decades! I've have seen average EOPs in the range of 3.5%, and almost every company go through large layoffs every few years. In the current version of capitalism, decisions are too strongly biased to favor the investors, so while the top 1% have become obscenely rich, the hard working middle America has to fend off rising housing, car, college, fuel and health insurance costs. Three decades of this brand of capitalism has left middle America in debt, the heady optimism of the past replaced by a quiet struggle.

If GOP's answer is less government, less spending in everything except defence, then I would say it makes no sense.

On the contrary, governments intervention in catalysing technology sectors, addressing climate change at a scale that private sector is wary of investing will create jobs. Governments efforts to put more money in the hands of the middle class will drive more demand for goods and services which would automatically attract and focus investments in an effective manner.

You make some good points on how the private sector has failed to deliver its wealth to the majority of US citizens, but keep in mind that the US has a highly developed economy so growth rates above 2% would be strange, maybe even worrisome in that it could be a sign of overheating, much like the aforementioned Japan economy in the 80's. Less developed economies are in a position for fast growth, not the US economy. 2%-3.5% should be fine. But you are right; The US needs to address wealth inequality or this 2% growth for its 1% won't have much meaning and in the long term could scar economic potential.

Agreed. But US can be a real export power house, in a number of areas. It is doing well in aircraft engines and ok in gas turbines, software. But has it missed the bus in renewable energy, climate change technologies, automobiles, process equipment. The list is long.

Japan stumbled also because of tremendous internal corruption in which some big names in the private industry and government were involved, and also because Korea began to replicate its manufacturing model.

GDP growth rates under democrats have outstripped republicans by 50%since WW 2. If policies support the middle class and the less fortunate, then money gets spent more usefully which attracts investments as returns are predictable. Every additional Chevy on the road Or every additional burger consumed adds up to economic work. It is smarter economics. Being indignant about the 47% betrays lack of compassion, and poor economics.

Yes private sector has delivered in India and china. In china there has been an unprecedented expenditure by the government on infrastructure, in highways, railways, in cities, power. There is a huge catalyst here. In India private sector has delivered well. These are heady days, the key lies in the expansion of the middle class. The biggest employer is the government which has raised salaries for its staff by 300% over the 15 years. Farmers see consistent increase in procurement prices - with close to 50% being procured by goverbnent and sold at subsidised rates. Infrastructure spending is much smaller than China but is significant, more than 10000 km of national highways have been recently 4 lanes, the point being that government is a big catalyst.

Were you channeling some Ayn Rand delusion-ists when writing this:
"Paul Ryan, a deer-hunter with an iPod full of rock anthems,"
`
I can't see Congressman Ryan appealing to broader constituencies yet, or helping bring non-traditonal voting blocs into the Republican tent. Not at this point.
`
Seems there is a track record of flirting with certain extremists like Akin.
`
Personally I didn't like the fact he was an enthusiast of Ayn Rand (seeing what that did for Greenspan), and at the same time was responsible for our current debt problems, from being big spender in practice during the Bush Administration (see voting record).
`
Much air time is given about his district, but doesn't it comprise places like Kenosha county that are around 90% white?

I am not a card-carrying member of either party but I tend to vote Republican because they seem to be the best option in terms of fiscal responsibility and support for business and the concept of free-enterprise. It is my view that as the economy goes, so goes the country.

However, I have never understood why the Republican party constantly kowtows to the religious right. What makes fiscal responsibility and support for free-enterprise the exclusive domain of religious demagogues?

I'm certain that there are many individuals that are pro-business and in favor of a responsible approach to fiscal issues that voted for Obama because they were very afraid that the archaic agenda of the religious right would dominate if Romney was elected. (Romney, I believe, is actually a moderate who was severely hampered by having to embrace the policies of the religious right in order to win the nomination but I can understand how many voters might not see him that way.)

It's time for the Republicans to wake up, jettison the religious right and develop sensible positions on immigration, women's issues (especially abortion) and homosexuality - positions that are in tune with contemporary reality.

"Romney, I believe, is actually a moderate..."
I voted for Obama and I believe the same thing you do about his opponent. I think the personal reports of Romney are probably true: that he's a good and decent man. The problem is, I also believe that, were he elected, Romney would not have had the courage or compass to stand against the extreme-right primary voters who installed him. He repeatedly showed himself too willing to bend his policies, politics, and behavior to the strongest wind. I feared there would be a lot of dog-wagging from the tail, and it is a tail that I do NOT want anywhere near the highest office in the world. And so I voted against Romney at least as much as I voted for Obama.

My thoughts exactly. I just didn't trust Romney to have the backbone to stand op to the lunatic fringe in the GOP. Hopefully a second-term Obama will have the ability to ignore the problematic elements in his own part. Pity I couldn't just vote for 2nd Term Romney. A Romney who never had to raise money again or campaign again might have been a great president....

The idea of a fiscal conservative is a myth. It's a veil to use as cover for hate. It's not just that republicans have been the most liberally spending of any people in the last 30 years, it's that they play at "state's rights" while it's convenient, until they want their way. You are right about the toxic reactionary right... but as a fiscal conservative who is socially liberal, it's been obvious since Bush I's spending, then Clinton with the HUGE surplus, and Bush II's spending..... the idea of a fiscal conservative is a myth in modern times. The GOP isn't fiscally conservative, just like they aren't principled.

"Principles only mean something when you stick to them when its inconvenient." - Laine Hanson from the Contender

You don't "jettison" a large wing of your party. You reason with them, and bring them towards moderate positions. Don't think this is possible? Take a look at the emergent church, young evangelicals who have moved to the left.

How is it that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible party? I mean, there is literally no evidence to support this, in fact all evidence supports the contrary. Deficit spending and long-term debt have been a feature of the US ever since Reagan. It abated during the Clinton hears and then exploded under Bush jr.

If a Democrat is "tax and spend" then doesn't that at least imply that they fund their spending? Don't kid yourself, both parties spend - it's what they do. But Republicans cut taxes and therefore do not fund there spending programs, hence the debt. So please tell me how is that Republicans are the fiscally responsible party?

The increased deficit under Obama is a product of putting the wars on the official budget (which were hidden under Bush) and declining revenues (due to the recession). Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire to help with the budget but the Republicans refused. To them it was more important for the über wealthy to retain their tax breaks than to get the deficit under control.

So please, inform me why you believe this myth about Republican fiscal responsibility? And if you can tell me when this nonsense first got started.

True. If you want to peek into a downright scary echo chamber take a look at the current Wall Street Journal discussion boards. Holy Christmas the racism, hate, and self-delusions on the right side offer no hope for their ability to change.

Dave, even the GOP's vaunted claim of fiscal responsibility and economic savvy is very suspect, as G W Bush, Ronald Reagan and Herbert Hoover have amply demonstrated. And if you substitute the word Society instead of Big Government you get an alltogether better feeling. Of course you need effective and efficient spending, but not by blocking and by cutting back help for the weak and needy.The overblown and rapidly obsolete defense budget would be a good start. GWB tax cuts would be another.

Of course, their actual record & performance in government isn't the problem? Because anyone interviewing someone for a job isn't really interested in what you've done in the past. Whether you have succeeded or failed in past undertakings?

I can explain the lack of youth vote in a nutshell: who really wants to party with a bunch of conservative white kids? The only conservatives I had any fun partying were with the libertarian types who always came to the diverse hipster/hip hop dance parties I went to. As Pinker said in the Blank Slate people are molded by their peers more than anyone else. So the party's next initiative should be to find better music, drugs and better looking people. If there is anything liberals have the inherent advantages on it is beautiful people, good drugs and good music all very important to people in college.

As much as I find the Republicans to be quite backwards, I am not convinced that they need a massive makeover. I feel that we Democrats lost worse in 2004 than they did this year, and I do not remember any massive changes we made that led our victories in 2006 or 2008.

The reality is that with only two parties in America, there is going to be ebb and flow, and sadly even with no changes I fear that the electorate will flow back to them in 2016.

The problem with your statement is that the Republicans in 2004 weren't leading at the front of a wave of change, social, political, demographic, or otherwise.

This time around, the Democrats are representing a wave of change in America. Increasingly large minority voting blocs, the activating of women voters, and the intolerance for foot-in-mouth syndrome all played in the Democrats' favor.

This is the key difference. The Republicans are getting older and have remained white, whilst the Democrats embrace diversity and youth, two growing factors in the American political landscape.

At the end of the day, each of our representatives need to focus on a daily basis on what's best for the country, not on what's best for them. If they do that, then win or lose, they will have served God, country, and their voters.

It is not only the country that the Republicans seem to dislike, it is impossible to govern effectively when it is government that you dislike. It's schizophrenic. Republicans must end their vitriolic diatribe against government and admit that right sized government is a very good thing, and that right sized does not always mean small. Hell, they love big government when it comes to defence, national security and intrusions into the nation's bedrooms! I too hope for an American conservatism that is long on common sense and short on religious and militaristic ideology.

The Republican Base would automatically back the a party presidential nominee--even if it were Joseph Stalin, Charles Manson, or Darth Vader--if they put on expensive suit, red tie and a flag pin and talked about business, religion, and abortion.

Hopefully Republican candidates could wave, smile friendly-like, mime a dumbshow act, and MOST IMPORTANTLY not talk--too many bad things come from speaking to the media. See Sarah Palin's highly managed VP Campaign. Or Romney's trip visiting Poland.
When in doubt, use the 'laryngitis' excuse, whisper, and point to the throat.
_______________________________

40% of Mitt's support was Automatic, Blind Republican Support. Mitt never earned it.

much of the republican ideal (hard work, independence from government, lower taxes, strong marriage) is by definition very good. BUT, they then micromanage each issue and fail to acknowledge any moderation on them. (All regulation is bad, Corporations are People, Gays as Sinners, Only Christian Faith has Value etc...)

It's a pity its so all or nothing in their camp - moderate republicans would be worthwhile for America

My theory is that the core conservative beliefs of accountability and responsibility and the core liberal beliefs of help those less fortunate are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.

The problem seems to be that the GOP motivation is really just to help the corporations and wealthy pay less taxes and make money from military contracts.

So the GOP can't really run on policy and hence have to create all of these other ways of getting people in this country to vote GOP. Their solution has been Fox News and identity politics.

Complicating things is that Fox News now makes so much money with their identity politics that the GOP can no longer control Fox News. As one Republican said, 10 million viewers makes huge profits but not a winning party.

I really look forward to a Republican Party that is not saddled by religious demagoguery, insane military spending, destruction of our social safety net and underlying racism.

At that point one could have a reasonable choice between the 2 parties on how to manage our debt without spending our way into bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, I do not see the current generation of Republicans taking a more moderate approach. Any move to the center is denounced as traitorous and the standard solution bandied around the party is a further swing rightward (somewhat like Moslem Extremists blaming their failures on a lack of adherence to their religious beliefs).

I predict another couple of massive presidential electoral failures. And only when Texas starts becoming a swing state will sanity come to the Republicans, leading to a more inclusive and centrist approach.

The party will not last that long. Politics will splinter and the basis of the system to which you are accustomed will disappear. The last time that happened was in the 1850s when the Whig Party dissolved. Political chaos ensued. On a happy note the Civil War eventually ended.....

The GOP has pissed a lot of people off and, fundamentally, lost the trust of the electorate. It will take a lot of work to get it back. Start by addressing the corruption of huge soft money (all the way into the state and local level). Get rid of Karl Rove, who profited inordinately this cycle (will anyone ever know how much?)- without much result. Punt Grover Norquist. Stop restricting voter rights and minority registration. Cut out the not-so-veiled racist attacks. Quit the silly supply-side BS. Admit austerity will harm the country, perhaps even permanently cripple the productive capacity of the economy. Stop flogging Tax cuts for 'job creators' (stop saying 'job creators'). End the absurd obstructionism. Send the rabid fringe to another party. Wait a minute... if you do all that, there's nothing left of the contemporary Republican Party. Go back to the drawing board and get better policies that work with Democracy instead of against it.

Sorry none of them are needed. The republican party can be a viable again (remember Romney almost got 62m votes) if they do the following three things -

i) distance from the religious right and the christian fanatics. Seriously you can't expect Asian Indians, Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Iranian Americans to vote for a party whose leadership consist of people who think that the earth is 6000!!! years old. Seriously get rid of these crazy evangelicals who scare the shit out of other immigrant groups.

ii) distance and tone down illegal immigration rhetoric. Frankly this is putting off a lot of lations (the fastest growing demographic group in US, and almost around 11.2m people who are waiting in the wings to join the electorate). Also note that if the amnesty bill passes lations will make 20% of the US population and anyone with a brain should salivate at the prospect of getting 50% of this voting bloc.

iii) provide a credible libertarian alternative (fiscal conservative, socially tolerant) and just watch how lot of IT entrepreneurs, smart business people, young people, minorities rise in unison to support you. I mean please...social conservatism is so 20th century!

If the GOP leadership does that, I am sure it would send a couple of shiver down the spine of democratic party leaders. I predict the particularly worried will be the rent seeking fraction inside the democratic party (I think most TE readership knows what I am insinuating here).

Had the pundits (The Economist included) insisted a little more on the disconnect with reality that characterizes the GOP before the election, rather than fixate on the horse race and the wonderfully contrived first debate performance by Romney, Republicans might actually be a little further along the road to recovery today. This one's one you.

Anything that can't continue, won't. The Republican party will change with the times. I suspect that the Republican party will trend in a libertarian direction - advocating for a smaller government role in both the economic [lower transfer payments, lower tax, freer trade, lighter regulation] and personal spheres [religion, bedroom, (soft) drug use]. The Tea Party is largely a revolt by the party's small government fiscal conservatives against the pork-barreling country club/big business conservatives. The influence of social conservatives is in decline even within the party even as it is within the country.

It seems to me Romney was the poster boy for pork-barreling country club/big business conservatives. The tea party doesn't seem to get that. They weren't crazy about him in the primaries, but that was because of the 'moderate' label and they certainly embraced him in the general. The tea party now seems a bunch of rebels without a cause or core. They 'talk' of Constitution and Founding Fathers, but don't seem to truly understand the principles and certainly didn't represent them well with the whole fabricated 'voter fraud' and 'poll watching' antics.

The Republican party actively pursued Evangelical Christians in the early 90's because the social issues/emotional hot buttons were the only way they could convince so many people to vote against their economic self-interests. Many of these may be among those calling their affiliation 'Tea Party.'

I do not think the Republican party can change sufficiently with the times and retain any identity. From top to bottom, they seem to have lost touch with reality. From their perspective, both Clinton and especially President Obama are 'radical' liberals while the rest of the country sees them as center to center-right. Yes, we do have the Healthcare Act under Obama's administration, but that's hardly turning us into a 'Socialist' nation. Much of the stimulus package was tax breaks and incentives for small business.

I agree with the author. The Republicans have a slightly uncomfortable inkling that something is wrong, but they did not get hit hard enough with the cold realities to look very deeply. Their soul searching, like their policies and rhetoric is very shallow.

"It seems to me Romney was the poster boy for pork-barreling country club/big business conservatives."

I don't know, Mr. Obama hit the links over 100 times during his first term and carried 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the election. I'd say the President has the better claim.

"The tea party now seems a bunch of rebels without a cause or core."

Their core is restraining government spending and opposition to the President's health care reform bill.

"They 'talk' of Constitution and Founding Fathers, but don't seem to truly understand the principles and certainly didn't represent them well with the whole fabricated 'voter fraud' and 'poll watching' antics."

The Tea Party movement hasn't championed the issue of addressing voter fraud. And anyway, Democrats certainly had their poll watchers and lawyers at the ready this week.

"Many of these may be among those calling their affiliation 'Tea Party.'"

Yes, the Republican party - like the Democratic party - is a big tent. It includes both fiscal and social conservatives and these groups are not mutually exclusive. But the Tea Party movement was fired by opposition to the stimulus and the health bill - not social or immigration issues.

"I do not think the Republican party can change sufficiently with the times and retain any identity."

Perhaps. I'm a non-religious, pro-science, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, pro-immigration ...and a Republican and Tea Party sympathizer. The R party is not monolithic and it is not static. It is evolving with country - just not as fast as it needs to be politically competitive. Enough years in the political wilderness will concentrate minds and lead to a change.

Your comparison between Clinton and Obama is illuminating. Clinton tacked right and worked effectively with Congressional Republicans after he failed to pass his health reform bill and his party got creamed in the polls. Obama passed his health reform bill by the narrowest of margins and his party got creamed in the (2010) polls - but he didn't tack right. He's managed to cling to power himself by the narrowest of margins and his health bill is still unpopular but he shows not sign of tacking to the center. We'll see if he can pull a Clinton and work with Republicans to get something accomplished. His record so far does not look promising.

The situation looks entirely different from the left. It was you who said the tea party was 'against the pork-barreling country club/big business conservative' and yet that is exactly the type of nominee they chose. Since President Obama wasn't their candidate, he's not relevant to my point. However, playing golf and carrying wealthy counties certainly doesn't give him the 'better claim' to the description. Romney's claim to fame was his 'Big Business' background, after growing up in those wealthy neighborhoods with a dad who was a Big Business CEO. Seriously, which would you picture being in the country club set? Ha.

The tea party no longer has a core. They may have begun in revolt due to the healthcare bill (mainly because they believed the false information that was spread by the opposition), but their chosen ones were defeated quite badly. They didn't begin with the socialist agenda, but the Bachmann's of the party took over the agenda and the abortion issue became at least as important to them as the budget.

Maybe you can enlighten me regarding how the party has evolved, because it seems to me to have the same positions, policies and composition the past 3 decades at least.

I am always amused by members of the party who like to lecture others about personal responsibility and accountability and have been quite open about their agenda of obstruction continue to blame President Obama for not working with them. President Obama went too far to the right trying to work deals with the Republicans who had sworn not to work with him. The health bill will become much more popular once people see how it will change the system for the better. Surveys show that people like it when they are asked specific questions about some of the measures in the bill. The propaganda machine had simply made the idea unpopular by lying about what it was.

What the Republican party will do now will most likely be equivalent to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Their basic principles are archaic and probably weren't even relevant in the industrial age. With the embrace of the Evangelicals (their first move to shore up their party electorally without changing their economic politics), they're becoming less relevant in social policy as well. It won't be enough to distance the party from the Evangelical radicals, they are moving positions on immigration hoping to get Latino votes, but that won't be enough either.

As taxes are at historic lows, and all the economic gains for three decades have gone to what R's refer to as the 'job creators' and the jobs they created were moved off-shore, job security is nonexistent, yada yada - people aren't as willing to buy the Republican spin. Well over half the country favors measures in the Health Care law, well over half the country favors increasing taxes on the wealthy. Well over half the country realizes climate change is real, and are sick of wars and think the defense budget should be cut. The R party not only has a long way to go, they have a long way to go on every single issue.

"It was you who said the tea party was 'against the pork-barreling country club/big business conservative' and yet that is exactly the type of nominee they chose."

I'll grant you that Romney looks the part and that what you say is consistent with the narrative that the Obama campaign machine has spun about him. But Romney's business background and appointment of Paul Ryan as his veep held some appeal for fiscal conservatives.

"However, playing golf and carrying wealthy counties certainly doesn't give him the 'better claim' to the description."

A matter of opinion. I think Obama fits the stereotype as well if not better than Romney. Obama's stimulus program was larded with pork for his pet industrial policy projects, after all. And while not as rich as Romney, Mr. Obama is still rich by any objective standard. He's obviously at home on the golf course and enjoys lavish parties with posh friends - part of his political constituency, we've established.

"Maybe you can enlighten me regarding how the party has evolved, because it seems to me to have the same positions, policies and composition the past 3 decades at least."

I'd say its evident in the Tea Party movement and the rising influence of fiscal conservatives relative to social conservatives in the party. An increasing share of the next generation of leaders in the party (e.g., Ryan, Cantor, Christie, Walker) are fiscal conservatives. I think its also evident in the significant and rising proportion of Republicans who support issues like gay marriage, drug legalization, abortion rights, etc. A lot of Republicans might not pull the lever for a Democrat but nonetheless support these issues through the initiative process. I offer myself as an example and I'm hardly alone.

"President Obama went too far to the right trying to work deals with the Republicans who had sworn not to work with him."

On the contrary, all of the real negotiations on his stimulus and health bills took place within his own party. He offered to let the Republicans tweak his health plan in return for some votes but made it clear that fundamental changes were not up for discussion. "Elections have consequences," he lectured. In the end, the only thing bipartisan about his health plan was the opposition.

"The health bill will become much more popular once people see how it will change the system for the better.:

Pelosi said they'd like it when they could see the details. Then we were told said they'd like it when the benefits started in 2012. Now it's 2014. The date keeps getting pushed back.

"Surveys show that people like it when they are asked specific questions about some of the measures in the bill."

Sure, it's possible to cherry pick measures that, especially when considered apart from their costs, will win popular favor. But most people seem to grasp that there's quite a bit more to the bill than those bits.

"What the Republican party will do now will most likely be equivalent to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

It's not changing fast enough but that could change. Election losses focus the mind. Meanwhile, blue states like California and Illinois are offering an object lesson in the limitations of the Democratic economic model and markets are increasingly disciplining sovereign debtors. The bills to the unfunded liabilities that comprise our social insurance systems are coming due. Something's going to give and the Dems are running out of other people's money.

The first part of this is oddly irrelevant. It was your statement that seems entirely without merit and has nothing to do with President Obama,as I noted earlier. It's not 'the narrative' it is the reality.

So, essentially, the 'evolution' of the Republican party is to double down on the fiscal conservative position, but really mean it this time. $2trillion more for defense. Tax cuts when we're at historic lows and have a high debt and deficit. That just sounds like more of the same to me. You've given no indication of anything different in the plans.Gingrich was threatening to shut down the government in the 90's in the same kind of standoff. Clinton called his bluff. In that regard, I'd love to see what happens within the Republican base of seniors once Cantor and Ryan try to blame everything on Medicare and Social Security and insist that these most popular programs need to be 'reformed' which (in their dreams) means take it away a little at a time if that's how it has to be. Do any younger people realize what that means for them? Good luck with that. Those bills 'are coming due?' In like 25 years? But this is the urgent focus of Republicans? And no one sees any connection to Wall St. in this, I presume. smh

California is saddled with the old Prop 13 fiasco and has also created an obstacle course for itself. That state still contributes more to the Federal treasury than it takes, which is more than we can say about the red states.

It’s truly absurd to pretend the Democratic Congress and President Obama did not negotiate (or try to) with the Republicans. If they had simply drafted and passed the legislation they wanted, it would look very different than what we ended up with. The Republicans successfully eliminated a public option in defense of the private insurance industry. That, of course, is the most unfortunate piece of the law given up in order to TRY to work with Republicans. Slick how you assume the questions were ‘cherry picked,’ but that isn’t the way it happened. The health care industry has been a monster for people to deal with and reforms were desperately needed. Everyone has talked about it for decades but no one got it done. I commend Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama for getting it done. It’s essentially the same plan the Heritage Foundation came up with a long time ago. All the protests now are a result of politics and manipulating public opinion. Karl really created the monster that is tearing the party apart. Won the battle, lost the war.

The difference between Romney and Obama that you're missing as far as the country club thing goes is that Obama was not born rich.

Take away the party affiliation for a bit. When a kid 30 years from now asks their parents "Can I be president?," the example that their parents are going to cite is going to be Barack Obama.

Born to a middle class family, an absentee father, moved around a lot as a kid, got into good colleges and worked hard enough to get into a great law school, went to help low income people in Chicago, got elected state senator, then national senator, wrote a best selling book, then president.

It's an inspiring story, and one that we can hold over snooty Europeans who call Americans racist but have yet to elect minorities in their government.

Obama is country club now, but he wasn't born rich like Romney was. (and before you say it, Romney gave away his dad's inheritance when he died in 1995, also known as when Mitt Romney already had 200 million dollars)

You could hear it in the way they talked. Ann Romney talked about living in a basement apartment, but the "we know what it's like to be poor" narrative fell apart when you found out that Romney supported himself by selling stock in his dad's company. It was "Rich guy born rich, works hard and gets very, very rich" In contrast, people liked Obama's middle class to rich story better.

As for the golf thing, this has been an odd charge to level. Go look up "president" and "vacation days" and find out which of our last five presidents took the most.

As for the healthcare thing, it was a Republican plan. The heritage foundation in 1992 or Romney in 2005 made it. But because the (D) was in front of the bill, suddenly it was vile and evil.

I am a Republican who voted for Democrats to punish the Republican party for glorifying stupidity, and flunking math and science. I will do so again if necessary, but I fully intend to vote Republican again, as the only politicians I respect in this country are Republican. 21st century government must be streamlined, efficient, and directed at providing a minimal safety net for citizens, a sturdy infrastructure for commerce, and no more. I do not know how long I will have to wait for the Republicans to come around, but amongst all of the voices of Republican stupidity, I hear some good ideas from amongst the younger Republicans, particularly in state government. I've yet to hear any from the Democratic party.

I think that if a strong leader moves the Republican party just a little, the Tea Party will self-deport itself. The Republicans adopted the Tea Party when they were down in 2009 and the Tea Party looked like a way to win. Now that the Tea Party looks like a way to lose, I don't think they'll be tolerated for long. Republicans are nothing if not ruthless.

I did the same hoping to send a message to the Republicans. It is time to join the present USA--not the one from the Reagan years. I will vote for a fiscally responsiblity. Clinton was the last to get it done--this time there were no real options. I am betting the Republicans can get there first with some pressure applied via their loss.

Honestly Ohio, your views seem to be fairly resonant with the Democratic Party, or at least with those of POTUS, though to be fair, Obama's e economic and foreign policies track best with what used to be considered moderate republican views. Personal disclaimer: white, middle aged, Obama supporter who also likes Olympia Snow and Alan Simpson

Honestly Ohio, your views seem to be fairly resonant with the Democratic Party, or at least with those of POTUS, though to be fair, Obama's e economic and foreign policies track best with what used to be considered moderate republican views. Personal disclaimer: white, middle aged, Obama supporter who also likes Olympia Snow and Alan Simpson

Honestly Ohio, your views seem to be fairly resonant with the Democratic Party, or at least with those of POTUS, though to be fair, Obama's e economic and foreign policies track best with what used to be considered moderate republican views. Personal disclaimer: white, middle aged, Obama supporter who also likes Olympia Snow and Alan Simpson

Don't wait, act! Try to organize an alternative, secular [pro Constitution and separation of church and state] Republican party where you live. A grassroots movement of concerned Republicans is the only way to retake the GOP from its abductors. The new party, with lunatics banned, will be a bit smaller at first, but will pick up quickly when people find out its sane again.

I am a bleeding heart liberal. I want the same things you want. Anyone with intelligence and common sense wants these things.

Better than just a minimal safety net, end poverty and get all those people working and paying taxes and I won't have to pay for welfare. It also reduces social problems like drugs, teenage pregnancies, divorce.

We liberals tried to end poverty and failed. Republicans go at it. But trickle down hasn't worked any better than welfare.

At what point have the GOP practiced anything like what you defined as the ideal role of government? Regan, Bush and Bush all expanded the state. Clinton was the only modernizer, and the only one to balance a budget. People need to cut the association of the GOP with fiscal responsibility and simply demand good management from both parties.

For my life I can't actually see what the GOP was offering America in this election, besides barrels full of ignorance, anger and hatred. There were some very intelligent, reasonable and competent candidates in the primaries (e.g. Hunt), all but forgotten now. This party can give the appearance of a sturdy old oak tree, but a quick touch shows it's full of termites.

I think GOP is cornered at this point and this election showed it pretty well. The grassroot base of the party is extremely socially conservative and was ready to nominate Santorum, had Romney not shifted very far to the right. They have to appease this base because they are their biggest voting block. The party as a whole cannot just pivot to the center because there is always going to be another Santorum that tea-party will end up nominating. At the same time, these guys are not the majority of electorate anymore so Republicans have to pick up votes from other groups to whom the ideas of GOP base seem insane. Next election cycle is going to be even worse for the party.

Maybe. Angry populist movements in the 1930s and 1890s faded fairly quickly when economic conditions improved. The Tea Party will not last forever, and in four years they might be an afterthought. If nothing else, Tea Partiers are dying off a lot faster than they are procreating. But timing is always hard to predict. 4 years is a long time in politics. 4 years ago people were talking about a permanent Democratic majority in congress.

The point about them dying off is a good one. I thought about it soon after I posted this. By virtue of being mostly old and white, they are not likely to survive as a sizable voting block for a long time.

The GOP will need to become more libertarian on social issues if they wish to take back the oval office. On many social issues (gay marriage and woman's health in particular) the GOP looks antiquated is not keeping up with the shift in American public opinion. Of course, the Tea Party will try to make life difficult for centrist GOP candidates in the primaries, which is silly since they are the only ones who stand a chance at winning the general.

Seems that the problem is that the Tea Party and other purists are not particularly interested in what is pragmatic and therefore what will win. There are a number of variations on the quote, but in general it reads that politics is the art of compromise. Much of the GOP seems to have completely lost sight of that.

My recollection is that there were two versions of the Tea Party. Version 1.0 in the 2010 election run-up was small government, fiscally conservative, and explicitly took no position on social issues. I would argue it was a net win for the Republicans.
Version 2.0 started when Michelle Bachmann anointed herself Tea Party spokesperson, and brought in her full social agenda. Local "leadership" also began to take an evangelical turn in many places. It alienated moderates in droves.
The brand is permanently sullied. Let it die, and may the new small government, fiscally conservative wing prosper.

It's a leaderless, amorphous movement - not unlike the Occupy movement. Certain politicians have courted the favor of Tea Party sympathizers and certain groups have tried to claim the mantle of leadership but they are all self- or media-appointed and not widely recognized as such within the movement.

I agree that the brand has been sullied, if largely unfairly, but it still enjoys more popular favor than, for example, labor unions or the Occupy movement. And the activists are a source of energy and can act as a counter weight within the Republican Party to the big-business and social conservative wings. I think it might still be able to attract independents who are concerned about the government's parlous finances and wish to see the problem solved more through spending cuts than tax hikes.

As long as they say "no tax hikes, ever, no matter what", they'll never be truly fiscally conservative, however-- it's impossible to pay off teh debt with our current level of revenue, nevermind with massive levels of tax cuts that the Tea Party is pushing for.

A tea party that came out in favor of massive cuts and slightly increased taxes might be taken seriously, but not before.

The other thing when you make the comparison to Occupy, Occupy has no "Occupy caucus" in Congress. The tea party does. Democrats don't elect their crazies, Republicans do and it's killing you. Not believing in evolution is just idiotic and a lot of the electorate can recognize willful idiocy when they see it.

I am a religious agnostic, but it does not strike me as extremist to think marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, as per thousands of years of human history. I could live with a civic union - it is all a matter of terminology. And it does not strike me as crazy to oppose mandating that an employer pay for the birth control of a female employee. One's healthcare policy shouldn't be determined by his or her employer, and there should be a deductoible such that small expenses like this are not paid for by the insurance company, so as to keep costs down.

I'm not arguing that being opposed to gay marriage is extremest, I am arguing that American public opinion is/has shifting in favor of gay marriage (it tipped past 50% around 2010). It is difficult to win a general election if your policies are not supported by the majority of Americans.

Additionally, regarding healthcare expenses, it is much more economical to pay for birth control rather than pay the EITC and other subsidies/externalities caused by unwanted pregnancy.

The question is on of rights and who are we to tell someone they can they can't marry the person they love like you and I can. It is a matter of equal rights that supposedly, the Declaration guarantees.

Religious conservatives have been using the Bible since the founding of our country to get around that. The south kept slavery claiming it was in the bible (and it is). They said woman shouldn't be allowed to vote because woman was made from Adam's rib and inferior.

Like segregation today, 50 years from now people will ask "did they really fight against equal rights for gays?"

And for all the talk about how ending don't ask don't tell would destroy the military, it has been a year and we haven't heard anything from all the conservative doomsayers.

The conservative right has really caused problems throughout the history of our country and, afterwards, nobody would defend what they fought for.

Where were you during the election?! Now that it's undeniable the GOP lost the presidency because they are literally ridiculous, the Economist suddenly has the bravery to confront the GOP's distaste for reality? Why now, and not when it was relevant, for the last 2 years? Waiting for the cards to hit the table, before stating the obvious? Just like when the fantasy of the George W Bush presidency was finally falling from the ivory pedestal of neocon pseudo-theory, you've jumped on board the common sense train, a dollar short and a day late.

I completely agree. The Economist changed significantly. The old Economist would have pointed out long time ago that the GOP is now the party of high spending (on Israel firster wars, offensive wars and military spending, on bailing out Wall Street, big government projects for their supporters, tax breaks to promote senseless spending, the party of Greenspan and Bernanke, etc) and religious freaks.
I am not a Democrat and don't support their economic policies but the GOP is not even American anymore. It is the party of Sheldon Adelson.

It is only in hindsight that such a commentary can be delivered, or at most in the past month, when it was clear that the President would win. If such an article had been written by Lexington a year and a half ago and if Mr.Romney would have won the election(and there was a distinct possibility of this at that time), it would have shown that Americans are still receptive to Republican dogma and the article would have been conclusively proven wrong.